Allan Gardens Revitalization Plan

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Last paragraph of that CBC story:

We can't enforce our way out of this crisis.

True, but not enforcing is also not a way out of this crisis - and there are secondary impacts to users of parkspace (or other settings - like transit or healthcare).

AoD

 

[Northern Light]

Last paragraph of that CBC story:


We can't enforce our way out of this crisis.

True, but not enforcing is also not a way out of this crisis - and there are secondary impacts to users of parkspace (or other settings - like transit or healthcare).

AoD

Both true.

Clearly there are non-enforcement actions that are essential elements of combating this housing crisis, including, but not limited to the provision of more deeply affordable housing, significantly higher social assistance/disability payments, easier to access, higher quality addiction treatment (no waitlist), and a higher minimum wage, amongst other things.

Yet, there is also a need to tell people in crisis, that remaining in crisis is not an option. That if they are suffering mental illness, which impairs their ability to function in any way in society, particularly to the point of self-harm or harm of others that treatment is compulsory. (this she be pursued with caution, and guardrails to preclude abuse).

Equally the above applies to addiction where it has left someone unable to maintain housing or employment/education etc.

Finally, for those for whom the above are not an issue, there is an affirmative obligation to accept help and alternative accommodation when offered. *

* I'll be the first to agree that our shelter system is dysfunctional to put it mildly and that even when space is available it is often insufficiently private, insufficiently safe, insufficiently hygienic all while managing to be very rules-bound, at the same time, which is a rather unfortunate feat.

There is no question we must do better, much better. Yet, there is some element of having to deal with the world as it is; and not was we wish it was. If you're declining shelter, and being as inconspicuous as possible in your crisis, causing as little inconvenience or harm to others as might be imaginable, perhaps one could argue for looking the other way with not so benign neglect. But where one's crisis is clearly adversely impacting the lives of others, some measure of intervention, however uncomfortable may be required.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Both true.

Clearly there are non-enforcement actions that are essential elements of combating this housing crisis, including, but not limited to the provision of more deeply affordable housing, significantly higher social assistance/disability payments, easier to access, higher quality addiction treatment (no waitlist), and a higher minimum wage, amongst other things.

Yet, there is also a need to tell people in crisis, that remaining in crisis is not an option. That if they are suffering mental illness, which impairs their ability to function in any way in society, particularly to the point of self-harm or harm of others that treatment is compulsory. (this she be pursued with caution, and guardrails to preclude abuse).

Equally the above applies to addiction where it has left someone unable to maintain housing or employment/education etc.

Finally, for those for whom the above are not an issue, there is an affirmative obligation to accept help and alternative accommodation when offered. *

* I'll be the first to agree that our shelter system is dysfunctional to put it mildly and that even when space is available it is often insufficiently private, insufficiently safe, insufficiently hygienic all while managing to be very rules-bound, at the same time, which is a rather unfortunate feat.

There is no question we must do better, much better. Yet, there is some element of having to deal with the world as it is; and not was we wish it was. If you're declining shelter, and being as inconspicuous as possible in your crisis, causing as little inconvenience or harm to others as might be imaginable, perhaps one could argue for looking the other way with not so benign neglect. But where one's crisis is clearly adversely impacting the lives of others, some measure of intervention, however uncomfortable may be required.

Homelessness is such a complex issue and different types of homeless requires different solutions. What government had failed utterly is their inability to police shelters effectively (this is also a problem with the TCHC) and create a situation where the inability to enforce becomes insecurity to everyone. That cannot stand.

AoD

 

[Northern Light]

Homelessness is such a complex issue and different types of homeless requires different solutions.

Agreed. I certainly can't exhaustively innumerate the breadth of the problem/solutions, but I hope I have conveyed the broad strokes fairly.

What government had failed utterly is their inability to police shelters effectively (this is also a problem with the TCHC) and create a situation where the inability to enforce becomes insecurity to everyone. That cannot stand.

AoD

The shelters appear to be, as a whole, on another level from TCHC; notwithstanding some very challenged neighbourhoods for the latter.

In respect of Shelters, I have argued strongly for moving to an SRO model (single room occupancy) with a lockable door on each room, with reasonable noise proofing. Staff would be able to over-ride the lock for cause. But this would instantly serve to provide privacy and much enhanced personal security as well.

Converting existing shelter sites, or replacing them entirely, will be a long haul, with ~10,000 beds in operation. But a combination program that aims to shelter anyone who needs it; but drives down the number of shelter beds to something under 5,000 by closing one bed every time 2 new affordable units are built; and replacing the residual shelter capacity with SRO over a decade or so, is something that is achievable and can be done, and should. It would take a decade, but then that just conveys that there's no time to waste.